California Gays just wont give up! Damn Freaks!

[ylexot (Premo)]

I think government should stay out of marriage...gay or straight.

[bcp (Premo)]

Originally Posted by ylexot

I think government should stay out of marriage...gay or straight.

I think the government should stay out of everything except security and infrastructure

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Dimwit Child

But if theres seperation of church and state and marriage is traditionally a religious ceremony.....why would the state support such a thing?

This is as applicable as asking "if dogs had wings, how fast could they fly?"

There's no legal separation of church and state - that was a line in a letter, not a legal status of anything. There's a prohibition against the government establishing a religion, and against the government from denying you the right to practice whatever religion you choose.

[Highlander]

Originally Posted by This_person

This is as applicable as asking "if dogs had wings, how fast could they fly?"

There's no legal separation of church and state - that was a line in a letter, not a legal status of anything. There's a prohibition against the government establishing a religion, and against the government from denying you the right to practice whatever religion you choose.

Amen! It's amazing how many people don't understand this.
It's definitely been given a new meaning in today's twisted society.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by This_person

This answers a lot as to why you've repeatedly accused my opinions on this subject as being bigotted. I'm sure that the cruelty of others growing up and probably even today has been brutal and has made you instantly defensive of your brother and that which makes him up. Nope. You're making up a picture instead of giving credibility to my argument. I was totally against gay marriage until Vrail made the argument, a couple years ago, that it's unconstitutional to single people out like that. In my view, she's correct.

In no small part the conversations on these boards has adjusted my opinion on homosexuality. Most of what changed my opinion has been reading things I wrote originally months after I wrote it. I disgusted myself. I've never thought of your argument as bigoted; just discriminatory and that is two different things. Your positions are respectable to me. We just disagree.

I do still feel that homosexuality is a physical impairment, a chemical inbalance, whatever. Due to Nature, God, evolution, or whatever you believe, the only way to procreate is through intercourse with the opposite gender. Strongly desiring to NOT do that would not forward the species. You describe it as not "normal". Being born blind is not a sin, being born a dwarf is not a sin, being born a genius is not a sin, and none of them are "normal". Most would consider being born blind a handicap, a disability. Same with being born a dwarf, and (for me) being born homosexual. I do think that it is physical, not just a "choice". Homosexuals have had, do have and will continue to have children. There is a guy in town who had kids and suddenly decided he was gay and left them and the wife. In my view, that was totally irresponsible and dishonorable for him to do just as it would be for a man to leave the wife and kids for the 22 year old secretary or any other woman. RESPONSIBILITY.

My range of desires also reaches out much further than "in the dark in the missionary position for procreation only", as the stereotype of fundamental Christian sexual doctrine would have people believe. Am I "abnormal"? I don't know and I don't care. I don't care what your brother does, and I don't care what you and Vrai do. None of that effects me or mine unless you're with me or mine. The extreme of your view would be that you are abnormal

The Bible has some very clear indications of what is considered a sin, but it also has some very clear indications of who should judge the sin, and what compassion and forgiveness and tolerance are all about. This is to say that I neither judge your brother nor anyone else like him. This is a constitutional question to me. People are free to dislike, disagree and despise homo's on religious grounds as they see fit. I am a free speech person.

However, I do have an obligation in my voting on questions/issues to consider what's good for society in general. I don't think polygamy is good for society in general, so I would not allow codifying polygamy. Same with incest. Same with diluting the meaning of the word "marriage", and it's stabilizing, generally advantageous effects it has on society. Make an argument why a settled, married and good neighbor gay couple is bad for society

Again, I hope your brother is with someone he loves, loves him, and they make each other very happy. He's a pervert interested only in his own happiness and personal gratification. Just like most men I know. I wish them nothing but a smooth road on their travels in life. I think they should celebrate their life together with friends and family. But, I think calling their life together a "marriage" is like calling an apple an orange - it's not, and shouldn't be called that. It's still a fruit. And that right there is funny. It's a union of two people and deserves no less respect than that. A "civil union" law should provide them all of the amenities a marriage license provides you and Vrai, and provides me and my wife - as well as all of the responsibilities. A Ford and a Chevy are both trucks, like our unions are all unions. But, let's call a Ford a Ford, and a Chevy a Chevy.

Let's just call it gay marriage, then?

[sunmoonstars]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

My brother is gay. That's not 'normal'. Normal is heterosexual. Normal is white. Normal is get married, 2.2 kids, two cars, a house, a back yard, BBQ's on the weekend. Normal is sit in traffic to go to a job. Normal is two weeks vacation a year. Normal is kids playing soccer. Normal is listening to bad music and watching bad TV.

Reality is matters of degree of all those things. Normal is simply what is most common. Not an absolute.

My normal is a little different. However I can respect your normal verses my normal..

[camily]

Originally Posted by This_person

This answers a lot as to why you've repeatedly accused my opinions on this subject as being bigotted. I'm sure that the cruelty of others growing up and probably even today has been brutal and has made you instantly defensive of your brother and that which makes him up.

In no small part the conversations on these boards has adjusted my opinion on homosexuality. Most of what changed my opinion has been reading things I wrote originally months after I wrote it. I disgusted myself.

I do still feel that homosexuality is a physical impairment, a chemical inbalance, whatever. Due to Nature, God, evolution, or whatever you believe, the only way to procreate is through intercourse with the opposite gender. Strongly desiring to NOT do that would not forward the species. You describe it as not "normal". Being born blind is not a sin, being born a dwarf is not a sin, being born a genius is not a sin, and none of them are "normal". Most would consider being born blind a handicap, a disability. Same with being born a dwarf, and (for me) being born homosexual. I do think that it is physical, not just a "choice".

My range of desires also reaches out much further than "in the dark in the missionary position for procreation only", as the stereotype of fundamental Christian sexual doctrine would have people believe. Am I "abnormal"? I don't know and I don't care. I don't care what your brother does, and I don't care what you and Vrai do. None of that effects me or mine unless you're with me or mine.

The Bible has some very clear indications of what is considered a sin, but it also has some very clear indications of who should judge the sin, and what compassion and forgiveness and tolerance are all about. This is to say that I neither judge your brother nor anyone else like him.

However, I do have an obligation in my voting on questions/issues to consider what's good for society in general. I don't think polygamy is good for society in general, so I would not allow codifying polygamy. Same with incest. Same with diluting the meaning of the word "marriage", and it's stabilizing, generally advantageous effects it has on society.

Again, I hope your brother is with someone he loves, loves him, and they make each other very happy. I wish them nothing but a smooth road on their travels in life. I think they should celebrate their life together with friends and family. But, I think calling their life together a "marriage" is like calling an apple an orange - it's not, and shouldn't be called that. It's a union of two people and deserves no less respect than that. A "civil union" law should provide them all of the amenities a marriage license provides you and Vrai, and provides me and my wife - as well as all of the responsibilities. A Ford and a Chevy are both trucks, like our unions are all unions. But, let's call a Ford a Ford, and a Chevy a Chevy.

Holy crap. I thought This_person was a woman.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by sunmoonstars

My normal is a little different. However I can respect your normal verses my normal..

...point being there is no 'normal'.

The most likely sexual predator is a heterosexual white male, probably married or was.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Larry, while i understand your position, i want to clarify that its not the only reason to have the discussion. I (as far as i know) do not have anyone in my family that is Gay. I know some Gay people but my opinion isnt influenced by them.
My stance is a purely Constitiutional one, That is my view as well. As I say, I was against gay marriage for the same reason most are; community interest. However, when truly thinking about it, the constitution, individual rights, trumped that. the Constitution tells the Government what it can limit and why. There is nothing that would allow discrimination based on a Nebulous reason, Sexual Preference falls under that.
Any arguements based on :

• Religious justification are not valid in our government, to many varied religions that have conflicting beliefs.
• You cant base it on Society, since Society changes and the Constitution itself isnt based on society its based on a concept of Equality.
• You cant base it on Children, since having Children is not mandatory for existing marriage.
• You cant base it on weakening of existing marriage, as others have stated, its already weakened and under "attack" by Heteros

My opinion is based on the Founding Fathers intent. "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal", we dont have "Classes" of people, something available to one is available to all.

[Tilted]

Originally Posted by This_person

This is as applicable as asking "if dogs had wings, how fast could they fly?"

There's no legal separation of church and state - that was a line in a letter, not a legal status of anything. There's a prohibition against the government establishing a religion, and against the government from denying you the right to practice whatever religion you choose.

I have to disagree with you here. Although there is a widely held belief that there is no legal separation of Church and State, that belief is erroneous. The phrase was indeed given birth as a line in a letter by Thomas Jefferson, then the President of the United States. On January 1, 1802, in a letter to members of the Danbury Baptist Association, he wrote:

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.

Admittedly, that statement, in and of itself, has no legal authority. However, the phrase was later given legal significance by the Supreme Court of the United States.

In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the majority opinion included this passage:

Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

That ruling interpreted the establishment clause of the First Amendment as creating a wall of separation between Church and State, and in so doing it defined the meaning of the First Amendment as such. Many people have vehemently argued that the ruling was in error, basically that the Supreme Court got it wrong; however, it is what they held and that makes it the law of the land. (It was a 5-4 decision by the way, but 5-4 decisions carry the same legal effect as 9-0 decisions)

Furthermore, in Wallace v. Jaffree (1985), a case in which the Supreme Court struck down an Alabama Statute as unconstitutional, the 6-3 decision held, among other things, that:

The State's endorsement, by enactment of 16-1-20.1, of prayer activities at the beginning of each schoolday is not consistent with the established principle that the government must pursue a course of complete neutrality toward religion.

Justice Rehnquist wrote a very comprehensive dissent to the majority opinion in which he argued that the decision, as well as the decision in Everson v. Board of Education, was in conflict with the original intent of the First Amendment. Many people have argued that he was correct, but his dissent was just that, a dissent, and as such it holds no legal authority, except to the extent that someone refers to his arguments when making their own.

The notion of 'separation of Church and State' may have begun as a simple phrase in a letter, but it was given power, and indeed legal authority, by the Supreme Court of the United States. There are plenty of great legal minds who will tell you without reservation that they got it wrong; nonetheless, for legal purposes the validity of their interpretation is inherent.

In other words, although many people think it should be otherwise, in the United States there is a legal wall of separation between Church and State.